Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Why Netanyahu is worried
The spat about 1967 borders seems somewhat overblown; while the Republicans seized on it because it gave them political fodder, Netanyahu's reaction seems out of proportion. The real reason, for which this was simply a proxy, is the current administrations shift towards supporting democracy even when the governments that come to power may be antithetical to US (and Israeli) interests. Netanyahu is worried, and rightly so, that this imperils Israel's security, particularly when it maintains such an intransigent stance in the peace process. However, he probably also understands that even if he were to adopt a more conciliatory approach, given his past rhetoric and history and the negotiating table, the Palestinians won't trust him an inch. As the Northern Ireland peace process showed, rebuilding trust takes time and commitment; and Israel seems to have neither.
Monday, May 16, 2011
How to fill the knowledge worker gap?
Ben Bernanke argued in a speech today at the "Conference on New Building Blocks for Jobs and Economic Growth", that the government needs to play a role in promoting R&D and expressed concern that in the US government support for R&D and particularity basic science has been declining while in developing countries such as China and India it has been rising.
He also noted that government policies to promote R&D are not restricted to issues of funding but have implications for immigration policy and education policy.
Education
I was educated, for the most part, in Britain where subject specialization begins at 16, and the last two years of high school are devoted to at most four subjects, generally in science (in may case, math, physics, chemistry and biology), languages, humanities or the arts. At university the courses offered as part of the physics program I followed, in common with most British universities, were all related to aspects of physics or math; the only non-physics course I took was an elective in macro-economics.
It was not until I started teaching in the US that I began to gain and understanding and an appreciation of the liberal arts model. That being said, while I have sympathy for the aims of liberal arts education, I do wonder whether it is generating the trained workforce the country needs to support its economy. Although I do believe that an education in heterogeneous subject matter may improve innovativeness, I am also concerned that we may be creating population that is 'jack of all trades and mater of none'.
Immigration (Make, buy or rent?)
If we can't fill the shortage in knowledge workers by growing our own, then, runs the argument, we should adjust immigration policy to ensure that students are encouraged to study here and remain here once they graduate. It seems to me that a flaw in this argument is that for many (though clearly not all) the only reason they stay in the US after getting their education is a lack of opportunity in the countries from which they come. As China and India's economies grow, and opportunities there for knowledge based work increase, the disincentives to retruning home will diminish and knowledge workers will again be in short supply in the US. As importantly, as China and India's educational establishments continue to grow in reputation, fewer and fewer students will see the need to get their higher education abroad, and the US' ability to attract and potentially retain knowledge workers will decline still further.
Ultimately, until we make as good if not better use of our own intellectual potential relative to other countries, there can be no long term solution to the knowledge worker problem.
He also noted that government policies to promote R&D are not restricted to issues of funding but have implications for immigration policy and education policy.
Education
I was educated, for the most part, in Britain where subject specialization begins at 16, and the last two years of high school are devoted to at most four subjects, generally in science (in may case, math, physics, chemistry and biology), languages, humanities or the arts. At university the courses offered as part of the physics program I followed, in common with most British universities, were all related to aspects of physics or math; the only non-physics course I took was an elective in macro-economics.
It was not until I started teaching in the US that I began to gain and understanding and an appreciation of the liberal arts model. That being said, while I have sympathy for the aims of liberal arts education, I do wonder whether it is generating the trained workforce the country needs to support its economy. Although I do believe that an education in heterogeneous subject matter may improve innovativeness, I am also concerned that we may be creating population that is 'jack of all trades and mater of none'.
Immigration (Make, buy or rent?)
If we can't fill the shortage in knowledge workers by growing our own, then, runs the argument, we should adjust immigration policy to ensure that students are encouraged to study here and remain here once they graduate. It seems to me that a flaw in this argument is that for many (though clearly not all) the only reason they stay in the US after getting their education is a lack of opportunity in the countries from which they come. As China and India's economies grow, and opportunities there for knowledge based work increase, the disincentives to retruning home will diminish and knowledge workers will again be in short supply in the US. As importantly, as China and India's educational establishments continue to grow in reputation, fewer and fewer students will see the need to get their higher education abroad, and the US' ability to attract and potentially retain knowledge workers will decline still further.
Ultimately, until we make as good if not better use of our own intellectual potential relative to other countries, there can be no long term solution to the knowledge worker problem.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Death of a Terrorist
At about 8:30 this evening, I heard the news that Osama Bin Laden had been killed by US special forces in Pakistan. In the hour before President Obama gave his statement to the press, CNN showed a crowd growing in numbers in front of the White House. CBS reported that a crowd had assembled in Time Square. The images of singing, cheering and the waving of flags seemed oddly reminiscent of the celebrations in many parts of the Middle East after 911. I imagine that the horror and outrage felt by hawks and doves alike almost 10 years ago here at seeing those scenes of people half a world away cheering when the Twin Towers fell, will likely be mirrored tonight by moderate Arabs watching Americans cheering outside the White House and in Time Square. While Bin Laden was seen by most - including me - as a terrorist, and few in the West will morn his death, there is still something unseemly, vulgar and frankly rather un-Christian in cheering when any human being has been killed.
The events also gave me cause to wonder whether other things might have been done to make his killing seem less like vengeance. For example, might he have been tried in absentia in a civilian court in the US or better still at the International Criminal Court in the Hague? At least then his death would have more than simply a kind of old testament 'eye for and eye' moral legitimacy. It would also have signalled that terrorists are criminals rather than warriors, which robs them of their status as heroes in some people's eyes.
Bin Laden's death won't necessarily prevent others from pursuing his and Al Qaeda's goals; indeed if he is now comes to be revered as a martyr and a saint by his supporters violence may escalate. But the event does serve to remind us that as humans beings we are all fairly close to the savagery of our not to distant forefathers, something that unites us all, even while ideology divides us.
The events also gave me cause to wonder whether other things might have been done to make his killing seem less like vengeance. For example, might he have been tried in absentia in a civilian court in the US or better still at the International Criminal Court in the Hague? At least then his death would have more than simply a kind of old testament 'eye for and eye' moral legitimacy. It would also have signalled that terrorists are criminals rather than warriors, which robs them of their status as heroes in some people's eyes.
Bin Laden's death won't necessarily prevent others from pursuing his and Al Qaeda's goals; indeed if he is now comes to be revered as a martyr and a saint by his supporters violence may escalate. But the event does serve to remind us that as humans beings we are all fairly close to the savagery of our not to distant forefathers, something that unites us all, even while ideology divides us.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)